Implementation Plan for Seventeen Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries

Transcription

1 Implementation Plan for Seventeen Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries Segments 0508, 0508A, 0508B, 0508C, 0511, 0511A, 0511B, 0511C, and 0511E Prepared by the Chief Engineer s Office, Water Programs, TMDL Section TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

2 Distributed by the Total Maximum Daily Load Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC-203 P.O. Box Austin, Texas TMDL implementation plans are also available on the TCEQ Web site at: < The preparation of this report was financed in part through grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ii Peer Review Draft, Date

3 Contents Tables... iv List of Acronyms... iv Executive Summary... 5 Introduction... 6 Summary of TMDLs... 7 Watershed Overview... 7 Source Analysis Point Sources Nonpoint Sources Pollutant Load Allocation Load Reductions and TMDLs Implementation Strategy Adaptive Implementation Management Measures for Nonpoint Sources Management Measure 1.0: Address Failing OSSFs Management Measure 2.0: Nonpoint Source Management Plan Control Actions for Point Sources Control Action 1.0: Removal of Point Sources from Wastewater Treatment Facilities.. 22 Sustainability Water Quality Indicators Implementation Milestones Communication Strategy References Texas Commission on Environmental Quality iii Peer Review Draft, Date

4 Figures Figure 1 - Project Area... 9 Tables Table 1 - Affected uses and support status by segment Table 2 - Permitted Domestic WWTF discharges in the Adams and Cow Bayou watersheds Table 3 - Permitted Industrial Discharges in the Adams and Cow Bayou watersheds Table 4 - Estimated Concentrations of Septic Tank Effluent Table 5 - Existing loads of key pollutants to Adams and Cow Bayou segments Table 6 - Summary of load reductions required to meet water quality standards for DO and E. coli14 Table 7 - Maximum Allowable Loads Table 8 - cbod Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Dissolved Oxygen Standard Table 9 - NH 3 N Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Dissolved Oxygen Standard Table 10 - E. coli Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Contact Recreation Use Table 11 - On-Site Sewage Facilities Management Measure Summary Causes and Sources: Nonpoint sources from malfunctioning OSSF Table12 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Table 13 - Removal of Point Sources from Wastewater Treatment Facilities Table A-1 - Address Failing OSSFs Measures Implementation Schedule and Tasks Table A-2 - Nonpoint Source Management Plan Implementation Schedule and Tasks Table A-3 - Removal of Point Sources from Wastewater Treatment Facilities Implementation Schedule and Tasks List of Acronyms cfu colony-forming units CWA Clean Water Act E. coli Escherichia coli I-Plan implementation plan LA load allocation ml milliliter MGD million gallons per day MOS margin of safety NRC National Research Council OSSF onsite sewage facility SEP Supplemental Environmental Project TAC Texas Administrative Code TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TMDL total maximum daily load TSSWCB Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WLA waste load allocation NPSMP Nonpoint Source Management Plan WWTF wastewater treatment facility Texas Commission on Environmental Quality iv Peer Review Draft, Date

5 Implementation Plan for Seventeen TMDLs for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries Executive Summary On June 13, 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality adopted Seventeen TMDLs for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries. The TMDLs were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on August 28, This implementation plan, or I-Plan: describes the steps the TCEQ and its stakeholders will take to achieve the pollutant reductions identified in the TMDL report, and outlines the schedule for implementation activities. The ultimate goal of this I-Plan is the reduction of bacteria concentrations and constituents that lower dissolved oxygen in Segments 0508, 0508A, 0508B, 0508C, 0511, 0511A, 0511B, 0511C, and 0511E to levels that meet the criterion defined in the state water quality standards. The TMDL identified a combination of point and nonpoint sources that contribute to the impairment. Nonpoint sources include failing onsite sewage facilities (OSSFs) and other sources pastures, forests and urban runoff. Point sources come from wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). The loads from the combined sources exceed the assimilative capacity of the bayous and must be reduced or redirected in order to alleviate the impairments. No single source accounts for the majority of the impairments in all locations and therefore each of the sources will need to be addressed. The best long-term solution for failing OSSFs would be to connect to a wastewater treatment facility that redirects the waste load away from the bayous. Where that is not possible due to logistics or expense, the failing OSSFs must be repaired, replaced, or upgraded. Other nonpoint pollution sources, including pastures, forests and urban runoff, will be addressed through a Nonpoint Source Management Plan. This coordinated effort will include local stakeholders, TCEQ, Texas State Soil and Water Control Board (TSSWCB), SRA-TX, and other organizations. The diverse nature of the nonpoint sources requires a broad approach that incorporates the perspectives of all stakeholders in the watershed to develop solutions that focus on the surrounding environment, encourage an integrated approach for funding, and support a well-developed public communication and education program. The nature of these nonpoint sources will require a continuing Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 5 Peer Review Draft, Date

6 effort to keep the public informed and educated to reduce and/or prevent the pollution load away from the bayous. The reduction of loads from point sources entering the bayous would require extensive increases in treatment that would be less cost effective than redirecting the waste load to an alternate water body. A study was conducted to determine the feasibility of regionalizing wastewater treatment in the project area. Sabine River Authority (SRA), City of Orange, City of Pinehurst, City of Bridge City, and the Orange County Water Control Improvement District are the main entities involved in the effort to develop a regional wastewater treatment system. Management Measures (Voluntary Activities) 1) Address malfunctioning OSSFs by connecting failing OSSFs to a waste water collection system. 2) Address remaining nonpoint sources through the development of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Control Action (Regulatory Activities) 3) Removal of point Sources from Wastewater Treatment Facilities a. Ensure compliance with permit limitations b. Reduce/eliminate sanitary sewer overflows c. Minimize loading through reduced permit limits d. Encourage/promote the Regionalization of WW treatment or the relocation of discharge points. The TCEQ will track the progress of this I-Plan in restoring the affected use. Water quality data will be collected the Texas Clean Rivers Program in an on-going effort to identify trends and compliance with the water quality standards. The TCEQ will reevaluate the TMDL and the I-Plan with stakeholder involvement and appropriate actions will be deployed as necessary. The TCEQ will report the results of implementation tracking and evaluation in its biennial program status report and at regional forums. Introduction In order to keep Texas commitment to restore and maintain water quality in impaired rivers, lakes, and bays, the TCEQ will establish implementation plans for each TMDL it develops. A TMDL is a technical analysis that: determines the amount of a particular pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet applicable water quality standards, and estimates how much the pollutant load must be reduced to comply with water quality standards. This I-Plan is designed to guide activities that will reduce bacteria, namely E. coli, and two constituents that lower dissolved oxygen, carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (cbod) and ammonia nitrogen, in segments 0508, 0508A, 0508B, 0508C, 0511, 0511A, 0511B, 0511C, and 0511E, as defined in the adopted TMDLs. The ultimate goal of the I- Plan is to restore the contact recreation use, aquatic life use, and general use of the segments. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 6 Peer Review Draft, Date

7 The I-Plan is a flexible tool that governmental and nongovernmental organizations involved in implementation use to guide the management of their programs. The participating organizations may accomplish the activities described in this I-Plan through rule, order, guidance, or other appropriate formal or informal action. This I-Plan contains the following components: 1. a description of control actions and management measures that will be implemented to achieve the water quality target. 2. a schedule for implementing activities. 3. the legal authority under which the participating agencies may require implementation of the control actions. 4. a follow-up tracking and monitoring plan to determine the effectiveness of the control actions and management measures undertaken. 5. identification of measurable outcomes and other considerations the TCEQ will use to determine whether the I-Plan has been properly executed, water quality standards are being achieved, or the plan needs to be modified. 6. identification of the communication strategies the TCEQ will use to disseminate information to stakeholders and other interested parties. 7. A review strategy that stakeholders will use to periodically review and revise the plan to ensure there is continued progress in improving water quality. Summary of TMDLs This section summarizes the TMDLs for the Adam and Cow Bayou watersheds. Additional background information including the problem definition, endpoint identification, source analysis, linkages between sources and receiving waters, and pollutant load allocations can be found in the Seventeen Total Maximum Daily Loads For Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries (TCEQ 2007). Watershed Overview Adams Bayou (Segment 0508) and Cow Bayou (Segment 0511) cover approximately 51 and 194 square miles respectively, in the coastal area of the Sabine Basin. The designated segments consist of the lower portions of the bayous up to points just above Interstate- 10 and are tidally influenced. Tidal water bodies typically have limited assimilative capacity, because of low flows and high dissolved solids. These conditions are made worse by high turbidity due to a heavy clay substrate and a large amount of detritus from the deciduous trees common in the area. The watersheds cover portions of Orange, Jasper, and Newton counties. Portions of the cities of Orange, West Orange, Pinehurst and Mauriceville lie within the Adams Bayou watershed, while portions of Bridge City, Vidor, Mauriceville, Evadale, and Buna lie within the Cow Bayou watershed. In the year 2000, the population of the Cow Bayou watershed (~23,900) was slightly higher than that of Adams Bayou (~17,500). Water quality impairments in Adams and Cow Bayous and their tributaries were first listed by the TCEQ in the 2000 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List (TCEQ 2000). Table 2 summarizes the affected uses and the support status of each of the segments considered for the TMDL Project. The TMDL Project for Adams and Cow Bayous and their Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 7 Peer Review Draft, Date

8 tributaries (figure 1.) was initiated in 2002 and the TMDL Report was adopted by TCEQ on June 13, The EPA approved the TMDLs on August 28, 2007, at which time they became part of the state's Water Quality Management Plan. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 8 Peer Review Draft, Date

9 Figure 1 - Project Area Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 9 Peer Review Draft, Date

10 Table 1 - Affected uses and support status by segment Segment Number Segment Name Aquatic Life Use (Dissolved Oxygen Mean/Minimum) Contact Recreation General Use Parameter(s) 0508 Adams Bayou Tidal Not supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) Not supporting Fully supporting Bacteria, dissolved oxygen 0508A Adams Bayou Above Tidal Not supporting (Limited 3/2 mg/l) Not supporting NA Bacteria, dissolved oxygen 0508B Gum Gully Not supporting (Limited 3/2 mg/l) 0508C Hudson Gully Not supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) 0511 Cow Bayou Tidal Not supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) Not supporting NA Bacteria, dissolved oxygen Not supporting NA Bacteria, dissolved oxygen Not supporting Not supporting Bacteria, dissolved oxygen, ph 0511A Cow Bayou Above Tidal Not supporting (Limited 3/2 mg/l) Fully supporting NA Dissolved oxygen 0511B Coon Bayou Not supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) 0511C Cole Creek Not supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) 0511E Terry Gully Fully supporting (High 4/3 mg/l) Not supporting NA Bacteria, dissolved oxygen Not supporting NA Bacteria, dissolved oxygen Not supporting NA Bacteria Source Analysis The sources of pollution contributing to the impairments in Adams and Cow Bayous and their tributaries are a combination of point and nonpoint sources. Elevated E. coli concentrations are observed during low flow periods, and increase dramatically as a result of runoff events. This situation does not eliminate either point or non-point sources and only indicates that the bayous are receiving larger contribution from either/both point or nonpoint sources during runoff events. Point Sources In the Adams Bayou watershed, there are currently five point source wastewater discharges from four facilities. Three of the facilities in the Adams Bayou watershed are domestic wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) that have a total permitted discharge of 8.72 million gallons per day (MGD) (Table 2). One industrial facility is permitted to discharge about 0.06 MGD of process wastewater and storm water (Table 3). In 2000, actual reported discharges averaged approximately 9.1 MGD for the five dischargers combined. Most of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 10 Peer Review Draft, Date

11 the dischargers are located in the lower reaches of the bayou. There are no concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the Adams and Cow Bayou watersheds. Cow Bayou has 20 point-source wastewater discharges from 15 facilities. Five of the discharges are storm water from permitted industries. Total permitted domestic and industrial wastewater flow is approximately 2.2 and 9.1 MGD, respectively. In 2000, actual reported discharges averaged 10.5 MGD. All of the permitted domestic WWTF discharges are less than 0.1 MGD, except for the City of Bridge City and Jasper WCID #1, which are larger than 0.1 MGD (Table 2). Industries such as Bayer, Chevron, Firestone, and Honeywell all have major industrial wastewater discharges to Cow Bayou (Table 3). Most of the major discharges of wastewater are located in the lower stretch of Cow Bayou. Table 2 - Permitted Domestic WWTF discharges in the Adams and Cow Bayou watersheds WWTF Discharges and TCEQ Permit Number Maximum Permitted Flow (MGD)* Adams Bayou Watershed Orange County WQ City of Pinehurst WQ City of Orange WQ (Secondary outfall) 7.0 Cow Bayou Watershed City of Bridge City WWTP 001 WQ Jasper WCID #1 WQ Bayou Pines Park WQ TXDOT Orange Co. Comfort Station WQ Orangefield ISD WWTP WQ ** PCS Development Co. WQ Sabine River Authority of Texas 1 Plant WQ Sunrise East Apartments WQ Waterwood Estates WQ *The maximum permitted flow is not equal to the actual flow. **This effluent is now being treated by the Orangefield Water Supply Corporation. Table 3 - Permitted Industrial Discharges in the Adams and Cow Bayou watersheds Industrial Discharges and TCEQ Permit Number Maximum Permitted Flow (MGD) Adams Bayou Watershed A. Schulman, Inc. WQ (Inactive) 0.06 Cow Bayou Watershed Chevron Phillips Chemical. Orange Plant WQ Firestone Polymers. Orange Plant WQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 11 Peer Review Draft, Date

12 Industrial Discharges and TCEQ Permit Number Maximum Permitted Flow (MGD) Honeywell International Inc. Orange WQ Bayer Corp. WQ Texas Polymer Services, Inc. WQ Not Applicable Printpak, Inc. Orange County Plant WQ In recent years, total BOD loading from point sources to Adams and Cow Bayous averaged 170 and 280 lbs/day, respectively, based on effluent data collected and self-reported by the dischargers. Total point source loading of total suspended solids (TSS) to Adams and Cow Bayous have averaged 390 and 835 lbs/day, respectively, in recent years. In Cow and Adams Bayous, the dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and ph impairments are more prevalent in the middle and upper reaches of the segments. However, it is in the lower reaches of the bayous, closer to the Sabine River, where most of the major wastewater dischargers are located. Nonpoint Sources Probable nonpoint pollution sources in the Adams and Cow Bayous watersheds include malfunctioning septic tanks, storm sewer overflows, runoff from urban areas, pet and wildlife waste, and other natural sources. Table 4 - Estimated Concentrations of Septic Tank Effluent Parameter Concentration E. coli 100,000 cfu/100 ml BOD Total Suspended Solids Ammonia nitrogen Phosphate phosphorus 170 mg/l 70 mg/l 35 mg/l as N 15 mg/l as P cfu = colony forming unit includes 10x attenuation factor to account for E. coli death between end of pipe and stream Additional nonpoint sources in these watersheds include livestock, urban runoff, wildlife, forest leaf-litter, human populations, and unauthorized discharges. While these sources were found to be minor contributors to the overall waste load as compared to on-site sewage facilities and point sources, the residential areas accounted for about one-third of the E. coli in Adams Bayou below interstate 10. Pasture and forest areas had the largest load contributions in areas with the least populations. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 12 Peer Review Draft, Date

13 Pollutant Load Allocation The load allocation can be developed using the following equation: TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS where: WLA is the waste load allocation representing contributions from point source discharges; LA is the load allocation representing contributions from nonpoint source discharges; and MOS is the margin of safety. Load Reductions and TMDLs Table 5 summarizes the existing loads for the key pollutants most closely related to water quality impairments. Nonpoint sources exceed point sources except for ammonia (NH 3 N) in Adams Bayou tidal. Point sources also contribute a significant part of the total loads of BOD in Adams Bayou Tidal and Cow Bayou Tidal. Table 5 - Existing loads of key pollutants to Adams and Cow Bayou segments Water cbod (lbs/day) NH 3 N (lbs/day) E. coli (colonies/day) body Point Nonpoint Total Point Nonpoint Total Point Nonpoint Total Adams E E+11 Bayou above tidal Gum Gully E E+11 Hudson E E+10 Gully Adams E E E+11 Bayou tidal Cow e E E+12 Bayou above tidal Cole E E+11 Creek Terry E E+12 Gully Coon E E E+11 Bayou Cow Bayou tidal , E E E+12 *due to data and model constraints, an accurate total maximum daily load could not be calculated. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 13 Peer Review Draft, Date

14 The load reductions required to meet contact recreation standards in the Adams Bayou water quality impaired segments are illustrated in Table 6. The reductions required to meet the geometric mean criterion are in all cases greater than those required to meet the single sample criterion. The required load reductions were calculated at each ambient monitoring site, and the load reductions for the segment are those from the site requiring the greatest load reductions. Required load reductions ranged from 15 percent in Hudson Gully to 83 percent in Gum Gully. The load reductions required to meet contact recreation standards in the Cow Bayou water quality impaired segments are illustrated in Table 6. Cow Bayou tidal and Cole Creek are projected to meet water quality standards for contact recreation without load reductions. Terry Gully requires a 20 percent reduction in E. coli loading to meet water quality standards, and Coon Bayou will require an 83 percent load reduction to meet water quality standards. Load reductions required to meet dissolved oxygen criteria were similar throughout the Adams Bayou system (Table 6), ranging between 51 percent in Adams Bayou above tidal and 60 percent in Adams Bayou tidal. In the Cow Bayou system, Coon Bayou and Terry Gully require 27 percent and 28 percent load reductions, respectively, to meet dissolved oxygen criteria. Terry Gully is predicted to require a 65 percent load reduction to meet dissolved oxygen criteria. Cow Bayou tidal is predicted to require a 69 percent load reduction to meet dissolved oxygen criteria. Table 6 - Summary of load reductions required to meet water quality standards for DO and E. coli Water body cbod and NH 3 N E. coli Adams Bayou above tidal 51% 77% Gum Gully 58% 83% Hudson Gully 55% 15% Adams Bayou tidal 60% 73% Cow Bayou above tidal * 0% Cole Creek 28% 0% Terry Gully 65% 20% Coon Bayou 27% 83% Cow Bayou tidal 69% 0% *due to data and model constraints, an accurate percent reduction could not be calculated. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Cow Bayou above tidal is an interesting case. The HSPF model, used to simulate water quality in the above tidal reaches of Cow Bayou, predicts that dissolved oxygen criteria are not met 36 percent of the time. These violations of dissolved oxygen criteria were predicted by the model to occur when there was no flow but perennial pools in the bayou. This is known to occur somewhat frequently. Reducing cbod loads in the model, even up to 100 percent, did not predict that dissolved oxygen levels would improve. It is not known how well the model predicts re-aeration under these no-flow conditions. Additional field monitoring under no-flow conditions would be required to confirm these model predictions. Since load reductions could not be shown to lead to attainment of water quality standards, a TMDL cannot be established for this segment. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 14 Peer Review Draft, Date

15 Maximum allowable loads of cbod, NH 3 N, and E. coli that are predicted to allow water quality standards to be met are provided in Table 7. These are calculated based on average percent reductions from total existing loading to the water body. The water quality impairments are not uniformly distributed throughout the larger water bodies such as Cow Bayou tidal, Adams Bayou tidal, and Cow Bayou above tidal. Neither are the pollutant loads mixed throughout the water bodies, and assimilative capacity may vary greatly with distance from the Sabine River. The load reductions described apply only to the case where a single uniform load reduction percentage is applied to all pollutant sources to the water body. The actual load reductions required to allow water quality standards to be met will vary with the pollutant source, and reducing some specific loads may not result in improved water quality. The model may be used to evaluate the impact of varying load reductions on a source-specific basis. Table 7 - Maximum Allowable Loads Water body cbod (lbs/day) NH 3 N (lbs/day) E. coli (colonies/day) Total Total Total Adams Bayou above tidal E+10 Gum Gully E+10 Hudson Gully E+10 Adams Bayou tidal E+10 Cow Bayou above tidal * * 1.1E+12 Cole Creek E+11 Terry Gully E+12 Coon Bayou E+10 Cow Bayou tidal E+12 *due to data and model constraints, an accurate total maximum daily load could not be calculated. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Table 8 - cbod Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Dissolved Oxygen Standard Water body TMDL (lbs/day) = WLA (lbs/day) + LA (lbs/day) Adams Bayou above tidal 67 = Gum Gully 18 = Hudson Gully 6.3 = Adams Bayou tidal 63 = Cow Bayou above tidal * Cole Creek 156 = Terry Gully 231 = Coon Bayou 85 = Cow Bayou tidal 358 = *due to data and model constraints, an accurate total maximum daily load could not be calculated. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 15 Peer Review Draft, Date

16 Table 9 - NH 3 N Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Dissolved Oxygen Standard Water body TMDL (lbs/day) = WLA (lbs/day) + LA (lbs/day) Adams Bayou above tidal 9.8 = Gum Gully 2.3 = Hudson Gully 1.8 = Adams Bayou tidal 17 = Cow Bayou above tidal * Cole Creek 22 = Terry Gully 36 = Coon Bayou 14 = Cow Bayou tidal 47 = *due to data and model constraints, an accurate total maximum daily load could not be calculated. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Table 10 - E. coli Total Maximum Daily Loads for Meeting the Contact Recreation Use Water body TMDL (colonies/day)=wla(colonies/day) + LA (colonies/day)* Adams Bayou above tidal 81 = Gum Gully 20 = Hudson Gully 35= Adams Bayou tidal 59 = Cole Creek 430 = Terry Gully 1100 = Coon Bayou 51 = Cow Bayou tidal 1900 = *All values are expressed in billions colonies/day Due to data and model constraints, an accurate total maximum daily load could not be calculated for Cow Bayou above tidal. Note that loads to tributaries are not included in the loads of the main tidal segment, i.e. they are not double-counted, although they also could be considered as loads to the downstream segment Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 16 Peer Review Draft, Date

17 Implementation Strategy The implementation strategy describes the actions that will be undertaken to achieve water quality standards in the Orange County TMDL Project area. The strategy specifies actions to meet the load allocations assigned to all point sources and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL report. Action strategies may be selected from a menu of possible measures based on an evaluation of feasibility, costs, support, timing, and other factors. Activities may be implemented in phases based on the TCEQ s assessment of progress. The implementation strategy for nonpoint sources includes identifying failing on-site sewage systems, and their repair, replacement, or upgrade. Where possible, households on failing OSSF systems will be connected to a central wastewater collection system. Implementation for other nonpoint sources will be addressed through the development of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan. This plan will include a public communication and education program and strategies to address the diverse nonpoint sources including livestock, wildlife, forest, and urban runoff. The plan will incorporate technical and financial assistance programs for agricultural producers, and existing state, county and local programs for forestry. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan will be completed by FY 2012 and will be part of this I-Plan. The implementation strategy for point sources is to reduce them and/or redirect the point source discharges away from Adams and Cow Bayous. One proposed strategy for this is the regionalization of wastewater facilities in the project area. Regionalization could involve some or all of the current wastewater treatment facilities. The facilities could also choose to redirect their effluents to other waterways. The TCEQ will track implementation activities through periodic performance measure reports from participating entities. The effectiveness of these implementation activities will be documented through water quality sampling and analyses to verify that the allocations for CBOD, ammonia nitrogen, and E. coli specified in the TMDL are met and that dissolved oxygen levels are responding as expected. Progress toward meeting the goals of the I-Plan will be evaluated through periodic reviews by watershed stakeholders. The watershed stakeholders may revise the I-Plan based upon these reviews and other pertinent information available. The results of the I-Plan tracking activities, reviews, and assessments will be published and made available to the public through existing state and local informational materials and outlets. Stakeholder meetings will be annually through the Nonpoint Source Management Plan, to assess progress using the schedule of implementation, interim measurable milestones, water quality data, and the communication plan included in this document. Based on the periodic assessments of progress the implementation strategy will be adjusted. Adaptive Implementation This I-Plan will be implemented using adaptive management concepts and assessment protocols. The adaptive management approach to implementing TMDLs was first presented in the congressionally authorized report of the National Research Council (NRC) in 2001, which assessed the scientific basis for the nation s TMDL program. The NRC committee concluded that uncertainty in TMDL forecasts was/is often large, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 17 Peer Review Draft, Date

18 consequence that implementation actions for water quality improvement might be ineffective and therefore wasteful of resources (Reckhow, 2007). The NRC committee recrecommended adaptive management as a way to both begin addressing water quality problems while continuing to conduct scientific assessments designed to reduce these uncertainties. Adaptive management is described as a learning while doing approach. Adaptive management is a cyclical process in which priority controls for water quality improvement are initially identified and implemented. Priority controls are those which have a relatively high level of certainty in their benefits to water quality, relatively low costs, and are otherwise consistent with appropriate management practices in the watershed. Priority controls may be sufficient to resolve the water quality impairment, or, in more challenging situations, may only be sufficient to move the watershed s water quality in the direction of reducing pollutant loads (Shabman, L., et al, 2007). The degree of effectiveness of priority controls depends upon the level of certainty regarding understanding of watershed processes, the magnitude of the water quality problems, and other factors. The adaptive management approach specifies that water quality control measures be periodically assessed for their achievement of interim and final water quality goals. The final water quality goal of a TMDL is attainment of the water quality standard. Interim water quality goals are a series of water quality-based milestones that together form a progression toward meeting the water quality standards. If periodic assessments find that water quality goals are not being achieved, additional control measures may be required. These additional control measures may require further evaluation prior to being deployed in the watershed. These evaluations are to be included in the on-going assessments designed to improve our overall understanding of the watershed. Management Measures for Nonpoint Sources The TMDLs for dissolved oxygen bacteria and ph in Seventeen TMDLs for Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries specifies a load allocation for anthropogenic nonpoint sources from the watershed. The TMDL identifies the subcategories of nonpoint source pollution believed to contribute CBOD, ammonia nitrogen, and E. coli to the bayou systems. The TCEQ expects that the management measures for nonpoint sources described in this I-Plan will be sufficient to meet the load allocations specified in the approved TMDL. Management Measure 1.0: Address Failing OSSFs The TMDL identified a large portion of the non-point source loading originated from failing OSSFs. A high failure rate (estimated at 95%) associated with existing OSSFs in the project area combined with the widespread and oftentimes dense populations of OSSFs in the watershed, resulted in high loading rates of CBOD, ammonia nitrogen, and E. coli to the waterbodies. Devising a method to address these systems has become a priority of the stakeholders. Shortly after the TMDL was adopted, grants were applied for and awarded to repair, replace, or upgrade failing OSSFs in the Orange County TMDL project area for homeowners who had limited or no means to make the repairs themselves. The Orange County Health Department is leading the efforts to accomplish this goal. A committee Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 18 Peer Review Draft, Date

19 was formed for the purpose of reviewing applications from homeowners, and to contract with local OSSF installers to make the necessary system modifications. Another alternative to provide funding to address failing OSSFs in the area is to utilize Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) funds, as they come available. SEP funds are made available while a regulated entity goes through the enforcement process at TCEQ for a permit violation. The regulated entity may elect to offset a portion of the fine by electing to do a SEP. Instead of paying the entire amount of the fine to TCEQ, a portion is designated to do an environmental project from either a preapproved list of projects or a custom designed one. Projects to repair, replace or upgrade failing OSSFs for the Orange County TMDL project area are on the preapproved list, and thus, easier to gain approval for from the TCEQ. Table 11 - On-Site Sewage Facilities Management Measure Summary Causes and Sources: Nonpoint sources from malfunctioning OSSF 1. Management Measures and Targeted Critical Areas 2. Estimated Potential Load Reduction (BOD - lbs/year; cfu/day) 3. Technical and Financial Assistance Needed for Each Measure 4. Education Component for Each Measure (and Other Education) 5. Schedule of Implementation for Each Measure 6. Interim, Measurable Milestones for Each Measure Connect failing OSSFs to a waste water collection system; Repair, replace or upgrade failing OSSFs 885 from OSSFs removed and 760 from repaired, replaced or upgrade systems 1.05 x cfu/day from removed systems Pursue grant funding to cover costs of connecting OSSFs to systems Conduct Public Information Campaign in coordination with the Nonpoint Source Management Plan Contract initiated March 2008 a) Number of failing systems connected to a wastewater collection system b) Number of failing OSSFs repaired, replaced, upgraded c) localized improvement in water quality 7. Indicators to Measure Progress Increases in dissolved oxygen levels and decreases in E. coli levels 8. Monitoring Component SRA monitoring through the Clean Rivers Program 9. Responsible Entity Orange County Health Department with assistance from SRA Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 19 Peer Review Draft, Date

20 Management Measure 2.0: Nonpoint Source Management Plan The nonpoint sources attributed to urban runoff and agricultural activities will require ongoing public information and education activities to reduce and/or prevent these sources from causing impairments. The development of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan will provide a broad approach to address the diverse sources of nonpoint pollution loading to the bayous. Guidance and technical assistance for local stakeholder groups is available from the Texas Water Resources Institute and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) to develop and implement Nonpoint Source Management Plans. The Texas Water Resources Institute and the TSSWCB have the knowledge and experience in addressing nonpoint sources from agricultural activities. Additional resources are available from the Texas Forest Service to address nonpoint sources from Silvicultural activities. One outreach group that is already active in the watershed is the Texas Stream Team. The Texas Stream Team (TST) is a network of trained volunteers and supportive partners working together to gather information about the natural resources of Texas and to ensure the information is available to all Texans. Established in 1991, Texas Watch (Texas Stream Team effective Feb. 1, 2008) is administered through a cooperative partnership between Texas State University, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Currently, over 1,400 Texas Stream Team volunteers collect water quality data on lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, bays, bayous, and estuaries in Texas. TST has been conducting trainings in the Orange County project area for the past several years, equipping citizens to do volunteer monitoring of local water bodies. TST has planned to continue with their education efforts throughout implementation and will be included in the Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Raising the general awareness of the citizens in the project area in regards to the water quality issues facing them will have a positive effect on water quality from several different perspectives. An increased awareness of the loading contribution from failing OSSFs will help the public to understand the need to connect to wastewater treatment facilities. Converting entire neighborhoods from failing OSSFs to a collection system will involve a great deal of public education on the specifics of water quality. Without education and outreach to these areas, implementation will take longer and be more difficult. Urban runoff and other nonpoint sources will also be addressed in the Nonpoint Source Management Plan and the success of these efforts will be largely dependent on successful education and communication programs. Public events for the purpose of heightening public awareness and education of local water quality issues will be used during implementation. In January of 2005, the Clean Bayous Fair was an event that gathered more than 400 visitors from the local area, and immersed them in the water quality issues associated with the project in an interactive, educational, and fun event. Attendees were introduced to the TMDL process and the local water quality impairments, and as they moved through the event they were introduced to different aspects of water quality such as effects of non-point sources of pollution, impacts of humans on the natural environment, and how they as homeowners can have either a positive or negative impact on water quality. An event of this type will be con- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 20 Peer Review Draft, Date

21 ducted periodically during implementation to further educate and energize the public on water quality issues. Additional outreach and public education will be coordinated with the existing Clean Rivers Program. The Sabine River Authority of Texas is the local Clean Rivers Partner and will include education and outreach for Adams and Cow Bayous as part of their existing program. SRA-TX will also coordinate with the Shangri La Botanical Gardens & Nature Center to include education and outreach programs as part of their commitment to promoting environmental stewardship. Table12 Nonpoint Source Management Plan 1. Management Measures and Targeted Critical Areas 2. Estimated Potential Load Reduction (lbs/year) 3. Technical and Financial Assistance Needed for Each Measure Public Education on nonpoint pollution The direct reduction of loading from public education will be difficult to quantify, however it will be key in the general acceptance of the overall Implementation Program Cooperative effort between SRA-TX, the Texas Water Resources Institute, the TSSWCB, the Shangri La Botanical Gardens & Nature Center, and The Texas Stream Team 4. Education Component for Each Measure (and Other Education) Conduct Public Information Campaign in coordination with the Nonpoint Source Management Plan 5. Schedule of Implementation for Each Measure Fall Interim, Measurable Milestones for Each Measure Number of events and number of attendees 7. Indicators to Measure Progress Increases in dissolved oxygen levels and decreases in E. coli levels 8. Monitoring Component SRA monitoring through the Clean Rivers Program 9. Responsible Entities Possible Participants include: SRA, the Texas Water Resources Institute, the TSSWCB, the Shangri La Botanical Gardens & Nature Center, and The Texas Stream Team Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 21 Peer Review Draft, Date

22 Control Actions for Point Sources Control Action 1.0: Removal of Point Sources from Wastewater Treatment Facilities One method to reduce the waste load going into these watersheds could be accomplished by redirecting the waste load to the extent possible to other receiving streams with better assimilative capacity and by improving the treatment of the remaining waste load. Development of wastewater treatment facilities for the failing OSSFs would be difficult if regional treatment is not available. Shortly after the TMDL document was adopted by TCEQ, a study was initiated to determine the feasibility of regionalizing wastewater treatment in the project area. Sabine River Authority (SRA), City of Orange, City of Pinehurst, City of Bridge City, Orangefield Water Supply Corporation, and the Orange County Water Control Improvement District are the main entities involved in the feasibility study. If the number of small dischargers to the many various segments could be reduced and funneled to a regional facility, the impact to the bayous would be reduced. The regionalization study has 4 major activities or goals. They are: 1) Study the feasibility of a regional wastewater treatment facility. 2) Remove the smaller point sources and divert to one regional facility. 3) The expansion of wastewater collection systems into the outlying areas in order to reduce dependence upon OSSFs. 4) The formation of a Regional Wastewater Authority to direct the regionalization process. There are several significant advantages to regionalization. Total removal of existing point sources from impaired water bodies will have an immediate, as well as, long term improvement in water quality. Point sources were not the dominant sources of loading to the bayous, as determined by the TMDL study. However, they are continuous sources of loading across all flow regimes, and their complete removal would have a positive impact on water quality. Also, the wastewater normally treated by these facilities will be sent to the regional facility for treatment. Many of these smaller treatment facilities are unmanned much of the time and are not given the same level of maintenance and daily monitoring a major regional facility would have. Furthermore, effluent limits for a major regional facility would be more restrictive than the effluent limits for most minor facilities. This would translate to better treatment of wastes and cleaner effluent. The effluent from the regional facility would likely discharge to the Sabine River, which has a much greater assimilative capacity than the smaller, more slowly flowing bayous currently being utilized. Relocation of wastewater effluents from individual treatment plants could also accomplish the same goal, but may not be as cost effective as regionalization. Also, the expansion of a wastewater collection system to areas previously un-served and utilizing OSSFs with the high failure rate determined for this area will reduce the loading from this major category of non-point sources. The alternative to the regionalization of wastewater treatment would be the removal of individual waste loads or increased limits for permitted discharges. Existing permits would need to be amended to reduce the loading currently being discharged. The improvement of OSSFs and continued improvements in management strategies for other non-point sources would not be sufficient to reduce the loads to acceptable levels. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 22 Peer Review Draft, Date

23 Table 13 Removal/Reduction of Point Sources - Wastewater Treatment Facilities 1. Management Measures and Targeted Critical Areas Wastewater Treatment Facilities 1) Ensure compliance with permit limitations 2) Reduce/eliminate sanitary sewer overflows 3) Regionalize WW treatment 4) Redirect effluent flows 2. Estimated Potential Load Reduction (lbs/year) 164,250 lbs/year 3. Technical and Financial Assistance Needed for Each Measure Pursue fund from the Texas Water Development Board for State Revolving Fund 4. Education Component for Each Measure (and Other Education) Conduct Public Information Campaign in coordination with the Nonpoint Source Management Plan 5. Schedule of Implementation for Each Measure 5 year permit renewal cycle Current activities 6. Interim, Measurable Milestones for Each Measure Number of entities joining the program and the removal of point sources 7. Indicators to Measure Progress Increases in dissolved oxygen levels and decreases in E. coli levels 8. Monitoring Component SRA monitoring through the Clean Rivers Program 9. Responsible Entities TCEQ, SRA Sustainability The TCEQ and stakeholders in TMDL implementation projects periodically assess the results of the planned activities and other sources of information to evaluate the efficiency of the I-Plan. Stakeholders evaluate several factors, such as the pace of implementation, the effectiveness of BMPs, load reductions, and progress toward meeting water quality standards. The TCEQ will document the results of these evaluations and the rationale for maintaining or revising elements of the I-Plan, and will present them as summarized in the following section. The TCEQ and stakeholders will track the progress of the I-Plan using both implementation milestones and water quality indicators. These terms are defined as: Water Quality Indicator A measure of water quality conditions for comparison to pre-existing conditions, constituent loadings, and water quality standards. Implementation Milestones A measure of administrative actions undertaken to effect an improvement in water quality. Water Quality Indicators Water quality monitoring staff of SRA will monitor the status of water quality during implementation. The following summary describes routine water-quality monitoring activities for the Adams Bayou and Cow Bayou Watersheds. The SRA already monitors one site in Adams Bayou and one site in Cow Bayou. The monitoring program will be expanded to include the other parts of the watersheds as the implementation process moves forward. Site Adams Bayou at FM 1006 in Orange TX Site Cow Bayou 10m Downstream of FM1442/Round Bunch Rd East of Bridge City TX Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 23 Peer Review Draft, Date

24 Implementation Milestones Implementation tracking provides information that can be used to determine if progress is being made toward meeting goals of the TMDL. Tracking also allows stakeholders to evaluate actions taken, identify those which may not be working, and make any changes that may be necessary to get the plan back on target. Schedules of implementation activities and milestones for this I-Plan are included in Appendix A. Communication Strategy Communication is necessary to ensure stakeholders understand the I-Plan and its progress in restoring water quality conditions. The TCEQ will disseminate the information derived from tracking I-Plan activities to interested parties, including watershed stakeholders, state leadership, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals. Results and progress will be documented in the TMDL Program s biennial status report. This report will summarize all actions taken to address the impairment and will report trends observed in the water quality data collected to track the progress of implementation. Work plans include a commitment to provide appropriate information to the TCEQ to update these progress assessments. Regionally, the progress of this implementation plan will be reported in the annual reports prepared by the Sabine River Authority under provisions of the Texas Clean Rivers Program. In accordance with CWA 319, the state must annually report to USEPA on success in achieving the goals and objectives of the Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program, including progress in implementing the NPS portion of TMDLs. The TCEQ and TSSWCB jointly publish Managing Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in Texas: Annual Report, which highlights the state s efforts during each fiscal year to collect data, assess water quality, implement projects that reduce or prevent NPS pollution, and educate and involve the public to improve the quality of water resources. Information derived from tracking and review activities of this I-Plan for Seventeen Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, and ph in Adams Bayou, Cow Bayou, and Their Tributaries will be reported in each annual report. Previously published annual reports are available at < The TCEQ will be responsible for hosting annual meetings so stakeholders may evaluate their progress. Stakeholders will continue to take part in annual meetings for up to the next five years to evaluate implementation efforts. At the completion of the scheduled I- Plan activities, stakeholders will assemble and evaluate the actions, overall impacts, and results of their implementation efforts. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 24 Peer Review Draft, Date